HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report 12.07.1992REQUEST:
«
BOCC 12/7/92
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
An Continuation of an Appeal of
the Conditions of approval for an
Exemption from the definition of
Subdivision
APPLICANT: Delaney/Balcomb Partnership
LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 27,
T6S, R89W of the 6th P.M.; located
on C.R. 163 adjacent to the
Glenwood Springs Airport.
SITE DATA: 8.09 Acres
WATER: Individual Wells (Proposed)
SEWER: Proposed I.S.D.S. systems
ACCESS: C.R. 163
EXISTING AND ADJACENT ZONING: C/G (Commercial/General); Adjacent
zoning is A/R/RD.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District A - Glenwood Springs Urban Area of
Influence as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property, commonly referred to as "the coke ovens
at Cardiff' is located on the north side of CR 163 west of the Glenwood Springs
Airport and the Rodeo Grounds. The property includes the coke ovens that
extend along the southwest property line (approximately 2,700 feet).The site is
currently undeveloped, with native vegetation. The site trends towards CR 163,
and rises steeply at the rear of the property (a vicinity map is attached on page
B. Project Description: The applicants are requesting an exemption to allow the
8.09 acre parcel to be split into four (4) parcels ranging from 1.6 to 2.4 acres in
size. The applicants intend on using the lots for commercial uses, specifically
proposing storage, vehicle parking and maintenance uses on the site.
1
•
The applicants intend on leveling the site, including the existing coke ovens on
Lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicants are proposing to preserve the coke ovens
located on Lot 2. Lot 2, approximately 1.6 acres in size, is proposed to be given
to The Historical Society. A copy of a 6-17-92 letter from the Frontier Historical
Society is included on page • 2 • . The remaining coke ovens on Lot 2
would be retained for historical purposes. Correspondence from the applicant
(Petition for Exemption, date August 31, 1992, on pages 3 •S )
includes a reference to the intention of the applicants to "...install the necessary
facilities to operate commercially"... the historic site. The specific commercial
facilities proposed by the applicant have not been specifically identified.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Section 8:10 (Applicability - Exemptions) states that the Board has discretionary
authority to except a division of land from the definition of subdivision. Following a
review of the facts of each application, the Board may approve conditionally or deny
an exemption request. The Board may not grant an exemption unless the applicant can
demonstrate compliance with zoning, legal access to a public right-of-way, adequate
water and sewer, state environmental health standards, necessary road and drainage
improvements, fire protection, adequate easements and school impact fees (if
applicable). The conformance to these requirements are summarized below:
1. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed split conforms to the
requirements of Section 8:10 with regard to the four (4) lot limitation. A deed
submitted with the application indicates that the parent parcel was created in
May of 1962. If approved, the proposed exemption would create the forth parcel
of record from that parcel in existence on January 1, 1973. This regulation
would prohibit any further division of the parcels through the exemption
process.
The Comprehensive Plan designation on the subject property, Glenwood Springs
Urban Area of Influence, indicates the site's proximity to the City of Glenwood
Springs. The single goal related to Urban Areas of Influence in the
Comprehensive Plan is as follows:
'Ensure that development occurring in the County which will affect a
municipality is compatible with the future urbanization plans ofthe appropriate
jurisdiction."
The most applicable objective related to the proposed Subdivision Exemption
is Objective 2:
"Ensure that development in an Urban Area of Influence is compatible with the
technical services available."
The policy designed to implement this objective requires that "all new
development in these areas should either connect to municipal systems if a cost
effective connection can be made, or design the subdivision such that a
municipal system can be connected at a future time to the development."
The City of Glenwood Springs has reviewed the proposed project, and the City's
July 27, 1992 comments are attached on pages is • % . As indicated in the
2
•
City's letter, The Glenwood Springs City Council approved Resolution No. 89-5
stating the "Any new development south of Glenwood Park shall not occur until
traffic problems are solved and required public facilities are provided, including
a fire station and a two-lane Four -Mile Road connection."
The City Engineer suggests that a traffic study be conducted for this project
prior to approval.
The City's Engineering Department also has serious concerns regarding the
ability to provide adequate water services without significantly upgrading
existing infrastructure. The City Engineer recommends that no new additional
water customers be added to the existing system in the area until the necessary
infrastructure improvements are in place.
The proposed project fronts on the City's proposed alternate route corridor.
The expected right-of-way needs if the alternative route is constructed is
estimated at an additional 60 feet (see City of Glenwood Springs letter, dated
July 27, 1992, on page • 7 ). For this reason, City planning staff are
recommending that front building setbacks from an arterial street (50') be used
as opposed to a local street setback (25') in anticipation of future road corridor
development and possible expansion.
idddonal correspondence from the city, dated 9-18-92, is attached on pages
•
2. Legal Access. Access to the new parcels could be obtained directly from the
County road. Individual driveways would require a driveway permit from the
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department.
3. Water. The applicants are proposing to use City of Glenwood Springs water to
serve the lots. No documentation has been received by the applicant addressing
the City of Glenwood's concern regarding the extension of central water facilities
to serve the proposed lots. Secondly, although referenced by the applicant, no
documentation has been submitted regarding well permits or augmentation
plans.
The applicants assert that the use proposed for the site will require "no water or
sewage disposal is necessary" (see Exhibit 2, pages 6-8). In effect, Exemption
Approval would create four (4) separate parcels of land within the
Commercial/General (C/G) zone district, which is the most permissive
commercial zoning available in the County. The uses permitted in this zone
district range in potential water consumption from low (salvage yard,
contractors yard) to high (plant for fabrication of goods, processing natural
resources into foods and beverages). Although the applicants intend on uses in
the lower consumption category, the need to ensure adequate water and sewer
services to commercially zoned property within the County warrant concern.
Although low -consumptive uses demand less water and generate lower
wastestreams, the need to provide adequate water and sewer cannot be ignored.
3
•
If water services cannot be extended to the site, due to either engineering or cost
constraints, wells will need to be used to provide water to the proposed lots. No
documentation has been submitted addressing any contingency plans for water
to the site if wells are necessary.
Sewer. The applicants are proposing individual LS.D.S. systems to serve each
lot. No percolation tests have been conducted on any of the parcels to date.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Survey maps submitted by the applicants
indicate that there are two primary soil map units on the property, #2 - Arle and
#8 - Atencio. See soil map on page q" /0 • .
The Arle soil map unit is moderately deep and well drained. Surface runoff is
considered medium, and the erosion hazard is severe. Use of this soil unit for
community development or as a source of construction material is limited mainly
by the depth to rock, steep slopes and large stones. Special design can overcome
these limitations. This soil unit presents severe constraints for sanitary facilities,
due to the depth to rock and slope constraints, based on SCS compatibility
methodology.
The Atencio soil map unit is deep and well drained. Surface runoff is slow, and
the erosion hazard is considered slight. Use of this soil for community
development is limited by large stones. Special design is needed for septic tank
absorption fields because of seepage and the possibility of polluting
groundwater.2
It is important to note that SCS maps are only a general planning tool, and are
appropriate for the identification of potential constraints. These constraints can
only be verified by field inspection or additional testing (i.e. perc tests, etc..).
In 1975, Garfield County contracted with Lincoln-Devore Testing Laboratories
to determine natural hazards within the County. This effort include the
identification of High Groundwater and Septic Limitations based on 1:24,000
71/2 minute U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The proposed site is located in an area
of evaporite minerals, which can be a significant constraint to the use of
conventional septic systems and leach fields. In essence, the evaporite minerals
are prone to dissolve, and the effluent does not percolate and can reach
groundwater in an untreated form. The location of the proposed exemption in
relationship to the Hazard Area identified by Lincoln-Devore is shown on page
4. Environmental Health Standards. No permits or approvals required at
this time. When individual lots are sold and Building Permits are
initiated, ISDS permits will be necessary.
5. Necessary Road and Drainage Improvements. Access from CR 163 appears to
provide sufficient access to each of the lots. An issue worthy of consideration
is the future impacts of multiple driveways when the alternative route corridor
'Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, May, 1985, Page 10 and Table 8 - Sanitary Facilities, page 108.
2ibid. Page 12 and Table 8 - Sanitary Facilities, page 108.
4
• to
is constructed. Multiple traffic movements in and out of the site may present
difficulties if the traffic volumes on CR 163 increase significantly.
No debris flows or significant erosion problems were identified during fieldwork,
although the steep mountainside immediately west of the lots may present some
erosion concerns during major spring and summer storms.
6. A copy of a letter from James S. Mason, Director of the Department of
Emergency Services, is included on page — % Z
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. The proposal is in general compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan and the Garfield County Zoning Regulations, specifically regarding Urban
Area of Influence designation, water availability to the lots and fire protection.
2. The proposed land use would be consistent and compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.
3. If the noted concerns regarding water supply, City of Glenwood Springs issues
and fire protection can be adequately addressed, the proposal is in best interest
of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The applicants appealed the Conditions of Approval that the Board of County Commissioners
approved on August 3, 1992. In the applicants appeal, they contended that the conditions
placed on the project where unacceptable, and in the case of the setback requirements, represent
a taking. The conditions are summarized below, and include a description of the practical and
legal reasoning behind each one. Staff contends that each of these conditions are valid, and
supported by both Colorado Law as well as the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
Staff recommends that all conditions remain in place.
Condition #1
All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless
otherwise stated by the applicant.
Rational: Self-explanatory
Condition #2
The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of approval.
Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of up to one (1) year.
Rational: Self-explanatory
5
Condition #3
The following notes shall be included on the exemption plat:
a. All lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered
wastewater systems. At the time of Building Permit Application,
proof will be required by a certified Colorado Engineer regarding
specific wastewater system needs on each lot.
b. All lots will be required to observe a 25' front setback from the
centerline of County Road 163.
c. Lot 2 is approved for historic preservation purposes only, per
applicant's written and verbal representations.
Rational: Engineered Wastewater System. No central sewage disposal system is available
for the proposed exemption site. Therefore, I.S.D.S. systems will be required.
The primary source for determining the feasibility of a particular site for septic
systems includes data regarding soil types and geologic conditions on the site.
Examples of areas where the feasibility of I.S.D.S. include the depth to the
groundwater table, slow percolation rates, or the presence of solution of
evaporite minerals. Data from both SCS and Lincoln-Devore laboratories
indicate that significant constraints are possible on the site, and therefore the
plat note is appropriate.
Setbacks. The existing right-of-way for CR 163 is 100 feet. Therefore, the
lotline setback, as proposed, is 25 feet. Staff had originally requested a 50'
setback for each lot, but the County Commissioners felt that a 25' setback was
appropriate. The 50' setback was suggested by City of Glenwood Springs
Planning Staff due to the anticipation of the City's future alternative route
corridor, and future right-of-way acquisition needs.
Per Section 3.08.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires the
following setback in the C/G (Commercial/General ) zone district:
Minimum Setback
l.) Front Yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five feet from street centerline or flit,/
(50) from front lot line. whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty(50)feet fror.
street centerline or t wen ly--five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater.
The County has only recognized the following roadways as arterial streets: State
Highway 82 and State Highway 133. Therefore the applicable setback on CR
163 would be based on a local street designation.
The applicants have claimed that the setback proposed, which is consistent with
the code constitutes a taking. As a prerequisite to a takings challenge, the
landowner must show that a fin al authoritative determination regarding the type
and intensity of allowable development has been reached by the governing
6
•
body.' This means that a landowner must apply for and be denied available
variances, before resorting to the Courts.4
The Garfield County Board of Adjustment is the administrative body given
authority to grant variances to regulations in the Zoning Resolution. If the
applicants feel the setbacks represent a taking, than the Board of Adjustment has
the authority to grant a variance. In staff's opinion, ample room exists for
placement of a structure on each lot in conformance with the required setbacks.
The only physical constraint is on Lot #1, and the proposed setbacks only
restrict building placement on a portion of lot 1. The Colorado Supreme Court
has emphasized that so long as a landowner is left with some reasonable use of
his property, a land use regulation will not amount to a taking.'
4. All existing easements shall be depicted on the exemption plat.
Rational: Self-explanatory
5. Approval of the proposed water supply plan either from the City of
Glenwood or the Division of Water Resources, will be submitted prior to
the recording of a final Exemption Plat.
Section 8.42 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires the following
information pertaining to water for a proposed exemption:
D. Proof of legal and adequate source of domestic water for each lot
created...
Rational: The applicant has failed to fully address this requirement. The
applicant has contended that the proposed use (vehicle storage,
repair, etc..) does not require water. First, staff disagrees with the
assertion that vehicular repair would require no water. Secondly,
the project review process must include an analysis that stretches
beyond simply short-term land use objectives. The
Commercial/General zoning designation includes a wide variety
of uses which require varying demands of water usage. Staff feels
until the applicants satisfy this condition, a Final Exemption Plat
should not be approved.
6. Driveway access will be consolidated in the following manner: Lots 1 and
2 will be allowed single access, with lots 3 and 4 to have a shared access.
Rational: Due to potential traffic volumes that could be associated with the
3Willians County Regional Planning Commission v Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.
Ct. 3108 (1985).
4ibid.
' Madis v. Higginson, 434 P.2d. (705) Colo. 1967); Famularo v. Adams County
Commissioners, 505 P.2d 958 (Colo. 1973); Bird v. City of Colorado Springs, 489 P.2d 324
(Colo. 1971); MacLeod v. Santa Clara County, 749 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1984); Lai v. City and
County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1988).
7
•
City's alternative route, minimizing driveways will reduce
conflicting turn movements between vehicles entering and exiting
the lots. Staff feels this condition is reasonable, and does not
represent an undue hardship on the applicants.
VI. UPDATE
On September 21, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners allowed the applicants
three (3) months to discuss options for the acquisition of the site for historic
preservation purposes. To staff's knowledge, no progress has been made in this regard.
Staff still feels that the conditions placed on the applicant are reasonable, legally
defensible, and in the best interests of Garfield County.
Since the 9-21-92 public hearing, The State Engineer's Office responded to the County's
letter for comment. John Schurer, Senior Water Resource Engineer, voiced concern
regarding the availability of City water to serve the parcels. A copy of Mr. Schurer's
9-30-92 letter is attached on pages j 3 •P1 .
8
2
Exhibit I
Delaney - Balcomb Partnership Subdivision Exemption
Vicinity Map & Surrounding Zoning
C 1110 ca, 4.61
I»4 U. -O w
• w
021
C/G
•
• 1
+/ HUG ES
rti
i d ST To CARO,F
4
O
0
0
N
K -1OI
�. 1G -Of
A/R/RD
G - O/
1G Of
U S A
T•
045
T•• Egimp}
-0
4
0
A
'l.
C/G
—27—
t
049
A/R/RD
CITTo49LEHW000
(041
I. E..v,r
North
FRONTIER
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
• 1001 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 •
(303) 945-4448
June 17, 1992
Mr. Robert Delaney
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Mr. Delaney and Mr. Balcomb:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Frontier Historical
Society Board of Directors to request that your proposed donation
of some of your Cardiff Coke Oven property, known as Lot 2 of
your preliminary plan, be deeded directly to the Frontier
Historical Society. This request is made with the knowledge and
the informal approval of the Garfield County Commissioners.
As a duly approved 501 (c) (3) organization, the Frontier
Historical Society may be given this property and it then could
be removed from the tax rolls. Also, as you are aware, a
donation of this sort to a non-profit organization may qualify as
an income tax deduction.
There may be more grant funds available to us for
restoration and fencing if the Society owns the property.
Therefore, this direct donation may be of benefit to all
concerned.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis Pretti, President
• Sponsoring a Local Museum for Garfield County and Surrounding Communitles •
111 AUg S 1 1992.
�;�;=►���� COUNTY
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER6.OF
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORDO
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (1) (a) - (d) as
amended, and the Subdivision Regulation of Garfield County,
Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984 Section 2:20.49, the undersigned
ROBERT DELANEY and KENNETH BALCOMB respectfully petition the Board
of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, to exempt by
Resolution the division of 8.089 acres of land into four tracts of
approximately two acres each, more or less, from the definition of
"subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and
defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (a) - (d) and the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated
below:
A. A sketch map marked Exhibit A at a scale of 1"=200'
showing the legal description of the property, dimension and area
of all lots or separate interests to be created, approximately, as
well as the fact that the property is adjacent to County road 163.
B. Attached as Exhibit B is a Xerox copy of a portion of
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle depicting the City of Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, and the location of the property known as the Coke Ovens
at Cardiff which is the property to be subdivided.
C. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the deed dated May 9,
1962 conveying the property to Applicants.
D. So far as Applicants can ascertain, the only property
owners within 200 feet of the proposed exemption are as follows:
Donald L. Vanhoose
Eva L. Vanhoose
0189 County Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Glenwood Ltd.
Attn: Eugene E. Lolli
2126 Rand';? Drive
Westminster, CO 80234
Richard Allen Birk
Dixie Jo Birk
0068 160 Road
Glenwood Springs, CO
City of Glenwood Springs
816 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Diana Force
0160 Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture
0497 Sunny Acres Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Grand River Construction
81601 P.O. Box 1236
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dave Force
0160 Road 1670
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Rudd Aviation
0132 Park Avenue
Basalt, CO 81621
Joseph R. Maynard
Phyllis K. Maynard
P.O. Box 511
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
E. Site location map and the soil characteristic features
furnished by SCS and previously submitted and approved.
F. Since the proposal is to divide the
property into
commercial lots to be used for either storage, vehicle parking and
maintenance, garages and the like, no water or sewage disposal is
necessary.
G. A letter from the office of the Water Division Engineer
indicates well water to be available if augmented, and
augmentation by West Divide can be obtained. that
H. As indicated by the attached copy of deed
Applicants have owned this property for a long time and during such,
period of time the property has been subject to much vandalism
overnight camping, and, in fact, being used as living
creating health hazards. g quarters
therThe taxes have repeatedly increased and
property, except for the pistol range loaned to the City for a
considerable period of time, has been otherwise been relatively
unused. The Glenwood Springs Historical Society has indicated an
interest in maintaining for historical purposes a few of the ovens,
but have no desire to attempt the maintenance of all of the coke
ovens and it is the intention of the Applicants, if the exemption
is granted, to level the area, except for Lot 2, the portion to
given, free of cost, to the Historical Societ he
necessary facilities to operate commercially, y' and install the
Unless the property is subdivided, it is of no particular
value.
I.
it did on
J.
The deed demonstrates the parcel exists at this time as
May of 1962.
The fee is submitted herewith.
,kn
K. The petition was presented on September 24, 1991 and a
hearing was not had until August 3,
outlined in a letter of August 5 1992. The conditional grant
Planner, was unacceptable in man 1992 from Dave Michaelson,
ticulars
nost matters could be addressed at the building primarily because
permit stage. The
75 foot setback from the centerline of County Road 163 on the
northerly end of the tract, some 575 feet in length, 50 feet in
width, renders the parcel unusable and accounts to a taking. The
limitation of two access points in a 2700 +/- frontage is
unreasonable, especially in view of the 25 foot minimum frontage
required for access in ordinary situations.
Respectfully presented this 31st day of August, 1992.
ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
a Partnership
By / 4„x.e,e hI
Kenneth Balcomb, General Partner
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Tel: 303-945-6546
5
July 27, 1992
Dave Michealson, Planner
Garfield County Regulatory Offices
1409 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Delaney and Balcomb Exemption
Dear Dave,
Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the above-
mentioned exemption application. The application was circulated
amongst various city departments for their comments. If you need
more specific information, let me know and I will connect you with
the appropriate individual.
Engineering
City Council has approved a resolution (No. 89-5) stating that "Any
new development south of Glenwood Park shall not occur until the
traffic problems are solved and required public facilities are
provided including a fire station and a two-lane Four Mile Road
connection." The City Engineer recommends that a traffic study be
done for this project determine the impact of increased traffic.
The City is probably unable to provide adequate water service
without significant upgrading of existing facilities. The City
Engineer'recommends that no additional water customers be added
until upgraded facilities are added so that the existing level of
service is not further degraded. Upgrading or new facilities would
be at the expense of the developer.
The project fronts on the proposed alternate route corridor. It is
anticipated that the right of way needs will exceed 60 feet.
Although the exact location and scheduling are not yet resolved,
any additional right of way should not be vacated unless it can be
clearly established that the right of way will not be needed for
the alternate route.
806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOI) SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 303/945-2575 FAX: 945-2597
Emergency Services
No objection to the proposed split. All structures will be subject
to the 1982 Uniform Fire Code. Water supply will be a major
concern.
Planning
The Planning Staff concurs with engineering regarding right of any
needs. Staff would recommend that building setbacks be observed
from an arterial street (50') versus a local street (25') for all
structures in anticipation of future road corridor development and
possible expansion.
Call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1
Andrew C. McGregor, Assistant Planner
806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 303/9-15-2575 FAX: 945-2597
(R
•
September 18, 1992
Mark Bean
Director of Personnel and Regulatory Services
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Delaney/Balcomb Subdivision Exemption Application
Dear Mark,
Thank you for keeping us informed of the ongoing proceedings of
this development application. The City remains firmly behind our
position stated in the July 27 letter regarding this and any
other similar project. We have had a number of developers of
proposed storage, mini -storage and airplane hanger uses argue
that they did not need a city water supply. We have reviewed
proposals to use an alternate water source such as a storage
tank. We consider such development unacceptable and are of the
opinion that storage of materials is subject to fire danger and
that upgrading of water facilities so that customers in this area
can be appropriately served by City water is essential to all
development. Therefore, it has been the policy of the City
Council in other similar requests to uphold Resolution 89-5
(cited in the July 27th letter) for all development.
Since our letter, some concern has been raised about reported
plans to raze the coke ovens. It is our understanding that this
is the longest string of historic coke ovens in the state. We
recognize their important role in our locality's past. At the
same time, we sympathize with the burden of a private property
owner who has possession of them. I would like to make the
property owners aware of new grant money (from gambling proceeds)
which is available for purchase of historic properties and other
programs which may address their financial burden and preserve
the coke ovens for the community at the same time.
806 CUoI'v1', AA,'vrAlv: CI,LN1v'OOI) suuIN(;s, COI,ORnDO 81601 303/9.15-2575 FAX: 945-2597
• •
I would be happy to give you some names of people who could
discuss options for preservation of the coke ovens without
hampering the property owner financially. If the City can be of
any assistance, please don't hesitate to call myself or City
Manager Mike Copp.
Again, thank you for keeping us informed in accordance with our
intergovernmental agreement.
Sincerely yours,
"tke.
Leslie Anne Klusmire
Community Development Director
)5774(,(
-9
0
z
DE/4w 713A1.40,11, `4c -M prioN1
LS 1-t
Cr)
eti
RIFLE AREA. COLORADO NO.
h-vTlc)14 of E-vAP3K v M04Er-i
���\\\\1 ?K T s ric
THE LINCOLN—DeVORE TES
COLORADO Colorado Springs, Pueblo,
Avon -Vail, Gunnison, Glenwood Springs, Montrc
Drawn by
Checked by:
Scale:1=24000 (I" 200(
Contour Interval. 40'
5 0I RL -e.
.1_1 - DI'vo L600eA-logti(i ICrl7
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
EMS • FIRE • RESCUE
9-1-92
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb, Esq.
P.O. Drawer 790`.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE. Delaney / Balcomb exemption
7-311-„;11-111.-11c-,:;11
7ifs/(---
r.�j1
SEP 0 2 1992 1
Dear Mr. Balcomb:
Per your request this letter will serve to confirm that the
property known as the Delaney / Balcomb exemption is within the
boundaries of the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection
District.
Itis our understanding that you are requesting a subdivision
exemption for the purpose of dividing the property into
commercial lots.
Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code 1982, section 10.301 c., adequate
water supply is required for all structures hereafter
constructed. The airport area at this time is without adequate
water supply for fire protection needs.
Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated
tanks,water mains, or other fixed systems capable of supplying
required flow.,
We will need to address the water supply issue prior
to
development of, the property. We would be hap
py
ourselves available to you to discuss this further at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Gig
James S. Mason, Director
Department o'':` Emergency Services
cc. Mark
—, 806 Cooper 'Avenue •. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-2575 • FAX (303) 945-2597 —"
t.!
iz-
••
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
('hone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
STATE OF
September 30, 1992
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Regulatory Offices and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Delaney/Balcomb Partnership Subdivision Exemption request
Section 27, T 6 S, R 89 W, 6TH P M
Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. McGregor:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to split an eight acre parcel into four
parcels of two acres apiece. The City of Glenwood Springs Water District has been designated as
the source of water; however, no letter of commitment for service has been submitted. Information
in this submittal indicates that the District may have sufficient water resources to serve this
development. We recommend approval contingent upon the developer obtaining a written
commitment for service from the District.
We find that we do not have current information in our files regarding the District's water
supply capability. Therefore, in order to facilitate future reviews of subdivisions to be supplied by
the City of Glenwood Springs Water District, we are requesting that the District provide to you and
to this office the following information:
1. A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the District.
2. The yield of these rights both in an average and a dry year.
3. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to commitments
for service entered into by the District.
4. The amount of uncommitted firm supply the District has available for future
development.
5. A map of the service area.
• •
Andrew McGregor Page 2
September 30, 1992
We request that you forward a copy of this letter to the City of Glenwood Springs Water
District, as we have no record of their mailing address. Please feel free to contact this office if you
have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jer-L-0
John Schurer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
JS/jd
delaney.rev
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
City of Glenwood Springs Water District
9-1-92
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
EMS • FIRE • RESCUE
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb, Esq.
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE. Delaney / Balcomb exemption
Dear Mr. Balcomb:
uE 1 8 1992
Per your request this letter will serve to confirm that the
property known as the Delaney / Balcomb exemption is within the
boundaries of the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection
District.
It is our understanding that you are requesting a subdivision
exemption for the purpose of dividing the property into
commercial lots.
Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code 1982, section 10.301 c., adequate
water supply is required for all structures hereafter
constructed. The airport area at this time is without adequate
water supply for fire protection needs.
Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated
tanks, water mains, or other fixed systems capable of supplying
required flow.
We will need to address the water supply issue prior to
development of the property. We would be happy to make
ourselves available to you to discuss this further at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
James S. Mason, Director
Department of Emergency Services
cc. Mark Bean
806 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-2575 • FAX (303) 945-2597